Wilson-Raybould talks about Trudeau ethics report, SNC-Lavalin controversy | Power & Politics

We heard from Prime Minister Justin
Trudeau today doubling down on no apology one day after the ethics
commissioner ruled he violated conflict of interest rules in the SNC-Lavalin
controversy. Earlier this year, Trudeau and members of his staff were accused of
inappropriately pressuring former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybold to
intervene in a criminal case against SNC, and SNC as we’ve been
talking about this evening and throughout the week is a big engineering
and construction company mainly headquartered in Quebec. The ethics commissioner determined Trudeau tried to unduly influence Wilson-Raybould and
further the private interests of SNC. Jody Wilson-Raybould, as I mentioned, is
the former Minister of Justice and Attorney General now an independent B.C.
MP and candidate for Vancouver-Granville. She joins us from Vancouver. Hi there, Ms. Wilson-Raybould, nice to see you. Thanks for making time for us. Pleasure, thanks to be here. So, the RCMP has used some unusual language with CBC to make it
apparent that they are seriously looking at launching an investigation into the
Prime Minister’s actions based on the ethics commissioner’s reports. Have you been contacted by the RCMP on this? I actually haven’t seen what the
RCMP has said today but I leave any potential investigation in their capable
hands. They basically said that they usually never comment unless they lay
charges but they did tell the CBC that they’re examining the matter carefully was all available information they’ll take appropriate actions as
required. I’m just wondering have they reached out to you at all in this? They haven’t reached out to me on this, no. Do you think the RCMP should investigate? I’m asking you because the opposition in response to the ethics commissioners
report released yesterday said that this this further makes the case for an
investigation. Do you agree? Well, I mean there were revelations for me and in the
commissioner’s report, but again in terms of criminal investigations, I leave that
determination to the to the RCMP. What revelations were there for you in
that report? Well, I mean I’ve read the report many times now as you can
appreciate. There was many conversations that were being had by
former colleagues of mine political staffers around SNC meeting with
officials of the company and having discussions that I wasn’t aware of, not
to say I have to be aware of every particular discussion but that was one
revelation the Commissioner asked me back in June — early June — when I met with
him about my knowledge of those two legal opinions. That came as a great surprise to me again I had no knowledge of those either. So just to be clear, you
didn’t know that in the reported details that the prime
minister’s office had previously reached out to former Supreme
Court justices and then asked you to seek a legal opinion as well. You weren’t aware that they had already done so? I had no knowledge of that. And what about, when you talk about SNC and the extent of its involvement did you know
for example that SNC specifically asked officials in the Minister of Finance’s
Office to attach the DPA to the budget implementation bill? That was of surprise to me, I did not have knowledge of that either. Were you aware, I guess, of
the extent as far as public records are available that SNC lobbied the federal
government for the DPA? I was aware that there were a number of meetings that
were had between SNC and various ministers. I did not have any medians nor
did anybody within my exempt staff have meetings with that company but I was
aware of some engagement in that regard and recognized that they as a
company have the ability to lobby officials. Do you feel that the level of
engagement at the time was inappropriate and if so, did you do anything about it? Well, I was aware that there were meetings. I didn’t know the nature of
those meetings or what was said. I had discussions with former colleagues
of mine that had expressed that they had had conversations but the nature of
those conversations and the detail of those conversations was not made
available to me. I guess what I’m getting at is did you believe at the time that the introduction of the DPA or the sort of the Prime
Minister’s attachment to implementing one or other ministers attachment to
implementing one — Do you think it was attached to SNC’s desire to? And if you did feel like — did you have a feeling at the time that that was
inappropriate? Well, it was made clear in the commissioner’s report that I was
of the view that the integrity regime or the deferred prosecution regime was
being introduced with SNC in mind. I undertook, as I was the Minister of
Justice, to amend the Criminal Code to bring in the new regime and provide that
additional discretionary tool to prosecutors but the extent of the
relationship or the engagement or the lobbying of that company I was not aware
of. And you know, to be honest, I find it curious that there was such detailed
discussion that was not brought to my attention. Would you have introduced that mechanism for prosecutors? Would you have attached yourself to the DPA had you have known the extent of
SNC’s involvement? Well, I really never liked to speak in hypotheticals
but I think it’s important to separate out the deferred prosecution regime and
the ability for a prosecutor to exercise their discretion and use that tool. From what the Commissioner reported on and the relationship between and among the
Prime Minister’s Office, SNC and various other ministers’ offices — they’re two
separate issues. The regime that was brought into the Criminal Code in
September of 2018 is a tool for prosecutors and — But we know now that SNC very
specifically asked for it right? And we know they asked for a lot. I take your point that it’s separate but I think in the minds of
Canadians who are reading through that report the introduction of that regime
is seen to be attached to SNC wanting it to be introduced. Would you, had you known
the full extent of SNC’s involvement, been supportive of the introduction of
that is even an option for prosecutors? Well, I’ll answer the question this way —
and I’m not trying to be evasive — I have confidence in the institutions of our
government and that includes the independence of the prosecutor’s office
and the independence of the Office of the Attorney General. I saw validation of that independence and the importance of it in the
commissioner’s report yesterday. So having said that, providing a
discretionary tool to the Director of Public Prosecutions in this case whether
or not to enter into discussions around negotiations of a deferred prosecution
agreement I have confidence in our institutions and I believe the
independence of our institutions and that our institutions are functioning
properly was reflected and validated in the commissioner’s report. So it’s not the tool being provided to prosecutors that is a problem or that is of concern,
because we have a prosecution service in this country that does their job, is
thorough, and we have an Office of the Attorney General of Canada likewise that
is an independent office, and those two offices from my perspective were
validated yesterday in the commissioner’s report. When you testified
before the Justice Committee originally months ago you were asked pretty
specifically I think by Elizabeth May and by Lisa Raitt whether you felt and I’ll read the question actually specifically Do you believe that
individually or collectively the pressure to which you were subjected
contravened the Criminal Code and now and asked if
you thought anything illegal happened. You at the time said no. Do you still believe that? Well, I based my answer on what I have been privy to, the
engagements that I have had, how things have unfolded my understanding of the
integrity regime and and my engagements with various people that were reflected
in the commissioner’s report. Based on the relevant information that I have during
the time that I was the Attorney General I still stand by that answer that I gave
at the committee. Having said that, and I’m not inferring anything there’s, as I said, information that came to light when I read the commissioner’s report and
I leave it to the RCM Police to determine if there’s other relevant
information that’s pertinent to the to answering the question that
you asked. Just so that I’m clear though based on what you know and the
information that you have available to yourself you still would say that
nothing illegal happened where the pressure put on you is concerned. No, but I do look at the commissioner’s report and and the violation of a
conflict of interest act incredibly seriously and I hope that Canadians and
and certainly that the government looks at that report seriously and ensures
that something like this never happens again. The Prime Minister continues to reiterate that he says he won’t apologize for standing up for Canadian jobs. He continues to reiterate that that was his motivation. Do you think that his motivation was
different than that, and if so what was it? Well, I can’t speak to the motivation
of the Prime Minister. I’ve heard him speak about jobs and I don’t think anybody would disagree that jobs are incredibly important to Canadians and to
elected officials to ensure we do everything we can for Canadians to have
good, well-paying jobs. We all agree on that. The issue here, and what was
reflected in the commissioner’s report, is around our institutions of government,
around ensuring that we uphold their independence and uphold the rule of law. That was what I was doing in my role then as the Attorney General. I believe that’s what Canadians care about and will take if there’s lessons to be taken
from this some eight months that we’ve been having this conversation is that we
all must remain vigilant and we all have a role to play in ensuring our
institutions, the fundamental tenants of our democracy, are upheld. That’s what makes our our country great and that’s what I’m hearing when I speak to people in Vancouver-Granville, for example, and across the country about the past eight
months and how we need to ensure that the people that are making decisions on
public policy issues or are tasked with upholding the
independence of our institutions are making those decisions based on
fundamental values and principles that we’ve spent years as a nation fostering
and ensuring that they do everything they can to ensure that they have the
trust of the individuals that elected them. That’s the obligation of any
elected public official. [VASSY] Before I let you go right up until the time the Prime
Minister removed you from caucus you said you were a proud member of the Liberal
Party. You know that in recent history various ethics scandals involving
Liberal governments during a campaign eventually helped defeat those
governments. What would you say to Liberals, former colleagues, former party members of yours who would accuse you of helping to elect now a Conservative government? Well, I reject that. I am the same person that I was when I
started knocking on doors 15 months before the last election. I ascribe fundamentally to the values that I see in the Liberal Party — values of equality
and justice and inclusion. I haven’t changed, and that’s what I talk to people
about with people here in my riding and I didn’t do or take any actions as the
Attorney General because I wanted somebody to be elected. [VASSY] But what if that happens? Well, I would not change the actions that I took. I believe that Canadians want to see in their public officials particularly ones that hold
offices like the Attorney General of Canada that they will be making
decisions not based on political considerations but based on a
fundamental understanding of the law based on a fundamental understanding
about how we maintain the fundamental tenants of our democracy and are
constantly vigilant on that. So would I have changed anything that I have done? I will not change my actions. I will not make decisions that aren’t based on
principles or the values that I have always embraced
and I think that that will resonate with Canadians and to my former caucus
colleagues in the Liberal Party but generally to all people that are wanting
to become members of parliament leading up into October. There is a way that we
can actually engage in political discussions in a different way and that
we can be guided by principles and values and I understand the nature of
politics and I am not discounting political parties but we need to make
decisions based on principle, we need to make decisions with all
Canadians in mind. And maybe we can just be a little less partisan when we
make those decisions because when we make decisions with our partisan hats
off we make better and longer-lasting more sustainable solutions and bring
forward ideas about how we can combat the important issues that are facing us. All right, I’ll leave it there. Thank you so much for making time for us, Ms. Wilson Raybould, really appreciate it. Thank you very much.